Posted on 11/21/2007 1:29:05 PM PST by Jim Robinson
I’m on Romney’s side. I fully support tort reform. And Romney.
You’re confusing my posts with Jim Robinson’s.
I was actually affirming your comment. That’s why I responded to you, rather than to JR. I can see how the confusion could come about, since there is a lot of mindless chatter going on on FR these days....
No, it's run by private companies. "Socialized" means its run by the government.
It’s forced on the people and it’s subsidized and controlled by the government. That’s socialism.
For 95% of the population, there are no subsidies. There are subsidies for the poor, but that's the case in every state. Romney didn't start that.
It’s unconstitutional.
How so?
And it’s the first step to socialized medicine.
Getting people into PRIVATE insurance is the very opposite of socialized medicine.
Hey, I'm all for doing everything to get rid of illegals, but even if we got rid of all of them, it wouldn't solve the uninsured motorist problem.
When states started adopting mandatory insurance, most uninsured drivers weren't illegals, and I would venture to say the same thing would be true today if we got rid of mandatory insurance.
Impounding cars won't solve the problem either. If an uninsured driver hits me and causes $20,000 in damage, both to my car or my body, impounding his $2,000 car isn't going to do me a damn bit of good.
Mandated insurance means ever car is a target for for a false insurance claim. The more money in the system, the more money paid out.
I don't believe liability insurance is a significant source of fraud. Do you have any evidence that it is?
In fact, liability insurance doesn't seem like a good candidate for fraud. How exactly would it work? The fraudster pretents to hit his accomplice, falsely admits guilt, and then splits the payoff with the fake victim? That would seem very hard to pull off. I'm very skeptical that something like this happens often.
Now with collision or comprehensive insurance, yes, the potential for fraud is huge. But no state mandates this type of coverage.
What you can’t argue away is that I’ve put $30,000 into the crapper as a driver without accidents. Those incentives aren’t worth $30,000.
You don't seem to understand the purpose of insurance.
The idea is to protect yourself against unlikely yet highly costly events that could ruin you (or someone else if you stuck him with the bill for your damage).
Most people can't receive more in payouts than they pay for the coverage. If they did, then the insurance company would go bankrupt because it would not have enough to cover the big losses (one of which might be you).
That money is by no means down the crapper. You didn't have to use it, yet, in part, because you were lucky. But you, and the drivers around you, can't count on that luck to always be there.
It's no more down the crapper than the money someone might have spent on fire or earthquake insurance despite having lived in a house for 30 years without incident.
What part of ROMNEYCARE IS ALREADY WAY OVERBUDGET don’t you understand?
Really? That's news to me. Please provide a source.
You don't seem to understand what socialism means.
It's government ownership of the means of production. Forcing people to buy insurance does not in any way involve the government ownership or even control over the insurance business.
Get your terminology straight.
Not necessarily. In fact, with insurance, mandating purchase usually reduces prices.
If you want to understand why, go look up "adverse selection" in any introductory microeconomics text.
Medical service providers will raise their price to whatever they can get which will be higher with universal insurance coverage.
Why?
And of course with a requirement to buy their product, insurance providers will not create any incentive to improve service.
So long as there is competition, they have plenty of incentives. Look at the fierce competition among auto insurers. There's also plenty of competition in MA for health insurance.
The dozen or competing companies have a strong incentive to get you to buy from them rather than their competitor.
And there will still be uninsured -- just as there are uninsured drivers in Pa. -- for whom society will still be obliged to care.
Of course, but there are a lot less when insurance is mandated.
What part of ROMNEYCARE IS ALREADY WAY OVERBUDGET don’t you understand?
“Really? That’s news to me. Please provide a source.”
Here ya go, this was as predicatable as the night following the day. The article is from the Boston Globe, so their spin is that a $147 million overrun The First Year is a GOOD thing - but socialism breeds its own disasters as regular as clockwork, and I will go out on a limb and bet next years overruns will be even higher.
So, stop trying to convince me that socialism is responsible capitalism - it just never flies.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/11/18/success_could_put_health_plan_in_the_red/
I am not a Romney supporter. His conversion on the life issue is too recent for me. I'd like to see him develop a track record as a conservative supporter of life before I turn over that kind of responsibility to him.
I'm a Duncan Hunter first, and Fred Thompson second, supporter.
I think that driving is a privilege. It is not a right. If you are going to risk my property, then you should have to put up bond. That's all insurance is....a bonding on your part to insure any payments for damage to others' property is handled.
You should NOT be allowed to risk my property without some means of covering damages if your gamble is wrong.
How in the world do you NOT see this as a property issue???
Romney's health care proposal is similar. You should NOT get to dip into my wallet just because you wander into a hospital and demand service. THAT is what is socialistic, my friend. A requirement that you pay your own way at the hospital is based on the legitimate PROPERTY rights of the one whose money the government has heretofore been stealing.
Just because Romney has a good idea here doesn't make him "my rino candidate."
That was an illogical conclusion on your part.
Romney: Loosen rules on health insurance
http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071121/NEWS09/711210380/-1/caucus
It does me no good to have some hit-and-runner have “penalties enforced.” His being in jail does not pay for my broken car.
The vast, vast amount of car insurance you’ve paid has been for covering your liability and collision of YOUR car. It has not been for uninsured motorists.
The point of your car insurance has been to cover your liability. Insurance is a perfectly legitimate capitalist business enterprise.
And there is nothing wrong with the government requiring everyone to be able to repay another person whom they have damaged. It is essentially taking a gazillion court cases sending them to debtor’s prison, realizing that doesn’t work, and requiring them, instead, to have posted a bond of payment. Pure business transaction from first to last.
The actual concept is quite broad and certainly covers indirect control by the community/collective/state with regards to the distribution of wealth and property.
If a government is telling you that you must buy this (which you may not want) from this list of merchants to drive down the cost (yeah right) of health care for others, that is socialism.
Now, those who who advocate things like this don't want to call it socialism since the word deservedly has negative connotations, but that's exactly what it is.
So, if the government requires you to repay me for damages you inflict on me, then that is socialism?
That’s simply incorrect, my friend.
One of government’s legitimate roles is to settle property disputes via a constitutional legal system.
Injury is a property issue. You should NOT be allowed to injure me or my property and just walk away from it.
You MUST be able to pay for damages against me. And since you don’t have the money to do it yourself, then you’d better buy into a group pooling of money (insurance) to enable you to pay IF you damage someone.
That is not socialism. That is good old entrepreneurial, business enterprise. Insurance is an old, honorable, and necessary business.
As far as I’m concerned, those who aren’t insured, or who have not posted sufficient bond, should have their licenses and cars yanked until they are. Period. And it should be checked twice or more a year.
If the government requires you to buy medical insurance, that is socialism.
[How in the world do you NOT see this as a property issue???
Romney’s health care proposal is similar. You should NOT get to dip into my wallet just because you wander into a hospital and demand service.]
Don’t try to turn socialism into capitalism, if you want to see what your bogus Romneycare gets you, go to Canada or England, it’s the exact same program. Romneycare is ALREADY $147 million over budget, how do you not see that as socialism???
Once you establish your bogus logic, don’t you see where it leads? You use the air and produce carbon dioxide that causes global warming, you MUST be mandated to buy carbon offsets. By being too fat, you are stealing from the health of the country, therefore you must be mandated to pay a fat tax. Your ideas steal from the good of the country, therefore you are mandated to pay a idea tax.
You are on a slippery road to socialism.
Is it socialism if the government requires me to run my sewage into the sewage lines instead of into my back yard?
I have not seen a single answer to a single issue that has been raised. All I have seen is the calling of names and the chanting of slogans. That is the tactics of those with no response.
Answer the property issue.
Joe Indigent does not have the right to steal my money (my property) in order to pay for his care.
If we allow it, THAT is socialism.
If we force him to pay SOMETHING, that is not socialism, and is a classic defense of property rights.
Give an example as to where this happened.
Medical service providers will raise their price to whatever they can get which will be higher with universal insurance coverage. Why?
Medical service providers (or anyone) will raise their price to whatever they can get. I don't think there is disagreement with that. Why would this be higher with universal (mandated) insurance coverage? The insurance would guarantee a minimum payment without increasing supply. Since demand won't fall, medical providers will simply charge what they can above the minimum.
Unless something starts setting their prices. Which would be what kind of economic system hmmmm?
No.
Is it not socialism for the government to require that you get your medical treatment at a particular hospital?
Yes, it is socialism for the government to require my treatment at a particular hospital.
One exception to that is VA health benefits that are the deferred pay of veterans.
Another exception would be in an epidemic with that hospital being the central location for treatment of some deadly outbreak.
But, in normal cases, requiring my treatment at a particular hospital is contrary to individualism (individual choice) which is the opposite of socialism (government mandate.)
However, requiring me to have car insurance is no more than requiring I be able to pay for damages I could cause. (Individual responsibility.)
Requiring me to have health insurance rather than raiding taxpayer wallets is no more than requiring that I pay for myself. (Individual responsibility.)
That would be liability insurance. How about collision?
Requiring me to have health insurance rather than raiding taxpayer wallets is no more than requiring that I pay for myself. (Individual responsibility.)
The existing system in which emergency rooms are required to treat non-emergency patients was a big step to socialism. The Romney plan (and various others) would be another big step to a completely government controlled health care system.
I have nothing against charity, btw, just so long as it's on the books as charity (and not as some kind of right).
If a city wanted to open a clinic or public hospital for the treatment of the indigent, I'm fine with that, so long as participation is voluntary and they don't try to screw up the private market.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.